USPTO Patents Application 10044284

Serial No. 10/044,284

Docket No. NG(ST)7228

REMARKS

Claims 1-25 are currently pending in the subject application, and are presently under
consideration. Claims 1-23 have been rejected. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-17, and 19-23 have
been amended. Claim 1 8 has been cancelled. New claims 24 and 25 have been added.
Favorable reconsideration of the application is requested in view of the amendments and
comments herein.

I. Rejection of Claims 1. 4-7, and 17-23 Under 35 U.S.C. S102(e)

Claims 1, 4-7, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by
U.S. Patent No. 6,438,354 to Thompson, et al. ("Thompson"). Claim 18 has been cancelled.
Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested for at least the following reasons.

Amended claim 1 recites a satellite for routing high power ampUfied (HP A) signals
comprising n first-stage HPA switches, each corresponding to one of the 0 to n HPA channels.
Claim 1, as amended, also recites M multiplexing devices, M second-stage HPA switches, and M
downlink antenna ports coupled to the M second-stage HPA switches, such that the n first-stage
HPA switches, M multiplexing devices, and the M second-stage HPA switches are configurable
to route any combination of the 0 to n channels to any of the M downlink antenna ports.

Thompson teaches a reconfigurable payload for a satellite that mimics the payload of one
of six satellites in a constellation with various fi-equency plans and antenna coverage areas. The
Office Action dated July 14, 2004, asserts that the n first-stage switches are taught by Section II
.in Fig. 8 (page 2). Thompson, however, does not teach that first-stage switches and second-stage
switches are HPA switches for switching HPA signals, in that there are not two separate sets of
switches after the high power amplifiers of Thompson. Thompson only teaches one set of
switches after the high power amplifiers (Fig. 8, reference number 46). Therefore, Thompson
does not teach n first-stage HPA switches, each corresponding to one of the 0 to n HPA
channels, and M second-stage HPA switches, as recited in amended claim 1 .

In addition, as described above, Thompson teaches a reconfigurable payload that can
emulate any of the six satellites in the fleet (col. 8, 11. 1-2). This allows a single satellite to

Serial No. 10/044,284

Docket No. NG(ST)7228

provide backup for any one satellite that may fail in fleet (col. 8, 11. 11-13, emphasis added). In
such a way, Thompson teaches that an uplink signal can be switched and redirected to a coverage
area of a failed satellite. However, Thompson does not teach the n first-stage HPA switches, M
multiplexing devices, and the M second-stage HPA switches are configurable to route any
combination of the 0 to n HPA channels to any of the M downlink antenna ports, as recited in
claim 1.

For the reasons stated above, Thompson does not anticipate amended claim 1 .
Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4-7 which depend therefrom, is
respectfully requested.

Amended claim 17 recites a switching mechanism for routing signals from up to n HPA
channels to any of M downlink beams comprising a means for directing HPA signals
corresponding to each of said uplink signals through n first-stage HPA switches each
corresponding to one of 0 to n channels, M multiplexing devices each to combine n/2 channels
into one output channel, and M second-stage HPA switches to M downlink antenna ports such
that any combination of 0 to n HPA signals can be directed to any of the M downlink antenna
ports. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Thompson does not teach both a first and a
second set of HPA switches, and further does not teach routing HPA signals to M downlink
antenna ports in any combination. Accordingly, Thompson does not anticipate amended claim
17. Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 17, as well as claim 19 which depends therefrom, is
respectfully requested.

Amended claim 20 recites a method of routing signals on a satellite comprising routing
the high power amplified signals such that any combination of 0 to n HPA signals can be
directed to any of M downlink antennas. As discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 17,
Thompson does not teach routing signals to M downlink antenna ports in any combination.
Accordingly, Thompson does not anticipate amended claim 20. Withdrawal of the rejection of
claim 20, as well as claim 21 which depends therefrom, is respectfully requested

Amended claim 22 recites a method of routing n HPA signals to M downlink antenna
ports on a satellite comprising directing the n first-stage HPA signals to any of the M downlink

Serial No. 10/044,284

Docket No. NG(ST)7228

antenna ports in any combination using n first stage HPA switches, M multiplexing devices, and
M second-stage HPA switches. As discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 17, Thompson
does not teach both a first and a second set of HPA switches, and fiirther does not teach routing
signals to M downlink antenna ports in any combination. Thompson therefore does not
anticipate amended claim 22. Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 22, as well as claim 23 which
depends therefirom, is respectfiiUy requested.

For the reasons described above, claims 1, 4-7, 17, and 19-23 should be patentable over
the cited art. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfiiUy requested.

II, Reiection of Claims 2-3 and 8-16 Under 35 U.S.C. S103fa)

Claims 2-3 and 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Thompson in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0038547 to Reinhardt, et al. ("Reinhardt").
Claim 13 has been cancelled. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfiiUy requested for at least
the following reasons.

Claim 2 recites that each of said n first-stage HPA switches comprises an Mil output
mechanical switch or set of switches, and claim 3 recites that each of said M second-stage HPA
switches comprises a two-output mechanical switch. Claims 2 and 3 depend fi*om claim 1. As
discussed above with regard to claim 1, Thompson does not teach both a first and a second set of
HPA switches, and fiirther does not teach routing HPA signals to M downlink antenna ports in
any combination of the 0 to n channels to any of the M downlink antenna ports, as recited in
claim 1.

Reinhardt teaches a switch matrix comprising a plurality of input and output switches.
The Office Action relies on Reinhardt for its teaching of the use of mechanical switches (Office
Action dated July 14, 2004, page 6). However, the addition of Reinhardt does not cure the
deficiencies of Thompson to teach or suggest both a first and a second set of HPA switches, and
fiirther do not teach or suggest routing signals to M downlink antenna ports in any combination
of the 0 to n chaimels to any of the M downlink antenna ports. Accordingly, neither Thompson
nor Reinhardt, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the recitations of amended claim 1 .

Serial No. 10/044,284 Docket No. NG(ST)7228

Therefore, claims 2 and 3, which depend from claim 1, should be patentable over the cited art.
Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2 and 3 is respectfully requested.

Amended claim 8 recites a satellite mechanism for routing any combination of 0 to n high
power amplified (HP A) signals to any of M downlink beams comprising a plurality of first HPA
switching devices each operative to route a HPA signal to at least one of two switch outputs, a
plurality of multiplexing devices each operative to receive inputs from at least one of the two
switch outputs of a respective set of the plurality of first HPA switching devices and to provide a
plurality of output signals, and a plurality of second HPA switching devices each corresponding
to one of the plurality of multiplexing devices and provided to receive the plurality of output
signals. Amended claim 8 further recites that the plurality of first HPA switching devices, the
multiplexing devices, and the plurality of second HPA switching devices are configurable to
route any combination of the 0 to n HPA signals to any of M antenna ports. As described above
with regard to claim 1, neither Thompson nor Reinhardt, alone or in combination, teach or
suggest both a first and a second set of HPA switches, and further do not teach or suggest routing
signals to any of M downlink antenna ports in any combination. Withdrawal of the rejection of
claim 8, as well as claims 9-12 and 14-16 which depend therefrom, is respectfiiUy requested.

For the reasons described above, claims 2-3, 8-12, and 14-16 should be patentable over
the cited art. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfiiUy requested.

III. New Claims 24 and 25

New claim 24 depends from claim 1 and recites M test ports, each corresponding to a
respective one of the M second-stage HPA switches, wherein each of the M second-stage HPA
switches is capable of switching a respective output from one of the M multiplexing devices to
the corresponding test port to allow access to test the respective high power amplified signal. As
described above, claim 1 should be allowed over the cited art, therefore, so also should new
claim 24. In addition, neither Thompson nor Reinhardt, alone or in combination, teach or
suggest M test ports, each corresponding to a respective one of the M second-stage HPA
switches. Thus, new claim 24 should be allowed over the cited art.

-10-

«

Serial No. 10/044,284 Docket No. NG(ST)7228

New claim 25 depends from claim 8 and recites a plurality of test ports, wherein each of
the plurality of second HPA switching devices is capable of switching a respective one of the
plurality of output signals to a corresponding one of the test ports to allow access to test the
respective high power amplified signal. As described above, claim 8 should be allowed over the
cited art, therefore, so also should new claim 25. In addition, neither Thompson nor Reinhardt,
alone or in combination, teach or suggest a plurality of test ports, each corresponding to a
respective one of the plurality of second HPA switching devices. Thus, new claim 25 should be
allowed over the cited art.

-11-

Serial No. 10/044,284

Docket No. NG(ST)7228

CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that the present
application is in condition for allowance. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this
application and that the application be passed to issue.

Please charge any deficiency or credit any overpayment in the fees for this amendment to
our Deposit Account No. 20-0090.

Customer No.: 26,294

TaROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL, & TUMMINO L.L.P.

526 Superior Avenue, Suite 1111
Cleveland, Ohio 44 1 1 4- 1 400
Phone: (216)621-2234
Fax: (216)621-4072

Respectfully submitted.

Christopher P. Harris
Registration No. 43,660

-12-